ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2022
Comprehensively evaluating cancer survival in children with birth defects: a population-based assessment.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health Outcomes in Childhood Cancer Survivors with Congenital Anomalies in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2025Article
- Risk of Childhood Cancer in Children with Congenital Anomalies and Their Impact on Survival: A Population-Based Registry Approach.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Mortality after cancer diagnosis among children with congenital heart disease in Denmark and Sweden.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCongenital malformations are strong risk factors for childhood cancer. Our objective was to determine whether cancer survival differs by birth defect status among Oklahoma children.
methodsWe used accelerated failure time models to estimate survival time ratios (SRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for maternal race/ethnicity and census tract-level poverty, among children diagnosed with cancer and born in Oklahoma from 1997 to 2012 (n = 971), by linking records from birth certificates, birth defects, and cancer registries.
resultsWe observed decreased, though imprecise, survival time among survivors with any birth defect (SR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.29, 2.31) or chromosomal defects (n = 24) (SR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.06, 3.30) compared to those without birth defects. We observed no difference in survival time among children with non-chromosomal defects (SR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.31, 3.12) compared to children with no birth defects.
conclusionOur study did not identify significant differences in cancer survival for children with and without birth defects. Future studies should consider pooling data from multiple states to allow in-depth study of specific birth defects and cancer types and confirm whether survival differs by type and number of birth defects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.